4.6 Article

Nerve ultrasound findings differentiate Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) 1A from other demyelinating CMTs

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 129, Issue 11, Pages 2259-2267

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.08.016

Keywords

Cross sectional area (CSA); High resolution ultrasound (HRUS); Inherited neuropathy; Nerve conduction study (NCS); Nerve ultrasound; Phenotypical spectrum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Ulnar/median motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV) is <= 38 m/s in demyelinating Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). Previous nerve high resolution ultrasound (HRUS) studies explored demyelinating CMT assuming it as a homogeneous genetic/pathological entity or focused on CMT1A. Methods: To explore the spectrum of nerve HRUS findings in demyelinating CMTs, we recruited patients with CMT1A (N = 44), CMT1B (N = 9), CMTX (N = 8) and CMT4C (N = 4). They underwent nerve conduction study (NCS) and HRUS of the median, ulnar, peroneal nerve, and the brachial plexus. Results: Median, ulnar and peroneal MNCV significantly differed across CMT subtypes. Cross sectional area (CSA) was markedly and diffusely enlarged at all sites, except entrapment ones, in CMT1A, while it was slightly enlarged or within normal range in the other CMTs. No significant right-to-left difference was found. Age had limited effect on CSA. CSAs of some CMT1A patients largely overlapped with those of other demyelinating CMTs. A combination of three median CSA measures could separate CMT1A from other demyelinating CMTs. Conclusions: Nerve HRUS findings are heterogeneous in demyelinating CMTs. Significance: Nerve HRUS may separate CMT1A from other demyelinating CMTs. The large demyelinating CMTs HRUS spectrum may be related to its pathophysiological variability. (C) 2018 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available